Individual Involvement Meeting 2010-05-27
Date: May 27, 2010
Time: 1:00pm-2:00 pm
Attendees: Richard Elmore, Garrett Dawkins, Janet Campbell, Tony Calice, Lee Jones, Sean Nolan, David Tao, Lois Hooper, Don Jorgenson
Action from this Week
| # |
Date |
Action |
Status |
Owner |
Due Date |
| 20 |
5/27/10 |
Look through the Concrete Implementation capabilities worksheet and review them with respect to patient engagement in order to discuss at the meeting on 6/3/10. |
Open |
WG |
6/3/10 |
| 21 |
5/27/10 |
Decided on updated meeting schedule. Meeting on the 3rd to review capability worksheets. No meeting on the week of the face to face meeting, bi-weekly meetings only if there are any actions/decisions to discuss. |
Closed |
WG |
n/a |
Action from last Week
| # |
Date |
Action |
Status |
Owner |
Due Date |
| 19 |
5/20/10 |
Provide guidance to the HIT Policy Committee/MU Workgroup as appropriate on Individual to Provider messages |
Open |
WG |
n/a |
Agenda
- Review action items from last week
- MU Stage 1 (2011) complete for Individual Involvement.
- Monitor / Follow-up on guidance provided to other workgroups:
- Open: Security & Trust
- Open: Content & Packaging
- Should Individual Involvement take a summer recess?
Notes
Comments raised by Adrian Gropper on the Google Groups list: [1]
Comment from Richard Elmore
A “thank you” to the workgroup for the work they completed on the Stage 1 MU Individual Involvement requirements. The team can now go into “monitor mode” until we start on Stage 2 MU in the fall.
Recap of meeting with Devin. Good exchange with respect to position of the WG relating to Individual to Provider messaging. Devin expressed interest in more involvement with the workgroup. Anticipating more visibility by early fall.
Call for comments by Richard Elmore on the following: For Individual to Provider messaging, we are dependent on information from the policy committee and details on how Security and Trust will work and what we need to be mindful of. By September we will reengage. Do people agree with the summary, and the WG's perspective?
| Name |
Feedback/Comment |
| Garrett Dawkins |
Agreed |
| Janet Campbell |
How will we deal with comments when we are not working? How to address things in the Google groups. How to deal with such issues when we are on hiatus. [Rich calls for separate decision on this subject.] |
| Tony Calice |
Agreed |
| Lee Jones |
Agreed |
| Sean Nolan |
Agreed |
| David Tao |
Agreed |
| Lois Hooper |
Agreed, provided that there is resolution on what to do with dealing with things in the hiatus. |
| Don Jorgenson |
Agreed |
Call for comments by Richard Elmore on preferred operating mechanism, going forward.
| Name |
Feedback/Comment |
| Garrett Dawkins |
Biweekly or monthly and monitor other user groups. |
| Janet Campbell |
No meeting unless necessary. Capability worksheets have details to be looked at. Section 10.4 needs review. |
| Tony Calice |
Change cadence of the meetings. |
| Lee Jones |
Meet on demand/less frequently. |
| Sean Nolan |
Put a spot on the calendar on the week of the 6th to comment on the 4 CIs before the face to face |
| David Tao |
|
| Lois Hooper |
Meet on demand/less frequently |
| Don Jorgenson |
Review the CI's and meet as required. |
Question from David Tao
Question regarding whether all Stage 1 items have been addressed by this group
Response from Richard Elmore
All Stage 1 requests have been reviewed and transferred to user stories.
Comment from David Tao
Ensure that all user stories have been addressed and this is a potential work for this group
Comment from Sean Nolan
Drafts of the capability worksheets are already up. They will be finalized by the 6th.